5 ms·

The history here is non-intuitive; I'll try to explain it. I was living in DC during the Crypto Wars of the late 1990s and covering them as a reporter (I've sin

by declan 12y ago

The history here is non-intuitive; I'll try to explain it. I was living in DC during the Crypto Wars of the late 1990s and covering them as a reporter (I've since shifted to working on http://recent.io/ http://recent.io/, of course). The SAFE Act as originally introduced in the House of Representatives was designed to be generally pro-crypto by relaxing export controls. But as it made its way through the various committees, the anti-crypto forces got their hands on it and turned it on its head. It became a ban-non-backdoored-crypto bill instead. More precisely, in 1997, a House committee approved a ban on domestic encryption without backdoors for .gov access. Here's an excerpt from the amended anti-crypto version of the SAFE Act: "After January 31, 2000, it shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture for distribution, distribute, or import encryption products intended for sale or use in the United States, unless that product [...] permits immediate decryption of the encrypted data..." Here's how one of the anti-crypto politicos, Rep. Bill McCollum, who went on to be Florida's attorney general, justified it while debating the House Judiciary version of that bill: "Because this bill will promote greater use of stronger encryption, law enforcement may not be able to gather evidence that it can use to investigate and prosecute cases. Imagine a situation where the police with a search warrant seize the computer of a terrorist but cannot decrypt the list of people and places that he intends to strike next. Or the situation where the police seize the computer of a purveyor of child pornography but cannot decrypt the files to download the images to prosecute him." http://www.techlawjournal.com/cong106/encrypt/19990324mcc.htm#1 http://www.techlawjournal.com/cong106/encrypt/19990324mcc.ht... So yes, you're right that sec. 2804 in one version of SAFE eliminates mandated key escrow. But other versions, including the one approved by that House committee in 1997, went exactly in the opposite direction.

tbrake 12y ago
Cheers. If I could make a suggestion, I think this kind of history belongs with the bill text on a blog post; providing the 1997 version without commentary caused a bit of confusion. It felt a wee bit misleading/alarmist because that text - again as far as I can tell, given the text of the later version that was approved - never actually made it into the final version. As presented it makes it seem like that's the law as it stands today.
jacquesm 12y ago
I love it how every time something like this comes up for discussion the reasons why we need this are trotted out and invariable those are 'terrorists and child pornographers'. And then those ignore the law and everybody else has to live with the consequences.
snarfy 12y ago
> Imagine a situation where the police with a search warrant seize the computer of a terrorist but cannot decrypt the list of people and places that he intends to strike next. Imagine a situation where a corrupt totalitarian government decrypts and monitors all traffic in the name of terrorism and then uses that information against anybody that gets out of line. We can play the imagination game all day. I like how it's always terrorists and child pornographers.
ipsin 12y ago
I agree that this is non-intuitive, and we've arrived at another time in DC when time has looped back on itself, and wars have to be re-fought. Your site, http://politechbot.com/ http://politechbot.com/, was one go-to source for information during the last crypto war. These days I could consult the EFF, EPIC or the ACLU, but I wonder if there's a place again for a cypherpunk-ish focus on DC policy, or if you've found sources covering the current policy with a politech-like mindset. In either case, thanks for all those years of good reading.
- declan 12y ago
  <ipsin>: Thanks for your kind words! I've felt the urge to restart/resume the Politech mailing list a few times in the last few years but haven't been able to dedicate the time such an effort deserves. Also it works better if moderated by a practicing journalist, I think. The short answer is I don't think there is such a source. EFF has good action alerts and blog posts (even if I may occasionally disagree with some of their legislative endorsements). EPIC and the ACLU are often more DC-centric, and Marc (who runs EPIC) is essentially an anti-cypherpunk in his views about the private sector. Among advocacy groups, TechFreedom.org is a relatively new entrant with free-market, liberalize-crypto views. But Berin, who runs it, is a lawyer, not a technologist, and is spending a lot of time on topics like Net neutrality and telecom regulation nowadays. If anyone is thinking of starting such a source of information with a cypherpunk-ish/politech-like focus on DC policy, I'd be happy to offer some advice, tips, and introductions.

by declan 12y ago

tbrake 12y ago

Cheers. If I could make a suggestion, I think this kind of history belongs with the bill text on a blog post; providing the 1997 version without commentary caused a bit of confusion. It felt a wee bit misleading/alarmist because that text - again as far as I can tell, given the text of the later version that was approved - never actually made it into the final version. As presented it makes it seem like that's the law as it stands today.

jacquesm 12y ago

I love it how every time something like this comes up for discussion the reasons why we need this are trotted out and invariable those are 'terrorists and child pornographers'. And then those ignore the law and everybody else has to live with the consequences.

snarfy 12y ago

> Imagine a situation where the police with a search warrant seize the computer of a terrorist but cannot decrypt the list of people and places that he intends to strike next. Imagine a situation where a corrupt totalitarian government decrypts and monitors all traffic in the name of terrorism and then uses that information against anybody that gets out of line. We can play the imagination game all day. I like how it's always terrorists and child pornographers.

ipsin 12y ago

I agree that this is non-intuitive, and we've arrived at another time in DC when time has looped back on itself, and wars have to be re-fought. Your site, http://politechbot.com/ http://politechbot.com/, was one go-to source for information during the last crypto war. These days I could consult the EFF, EPIC or the ACLU, but I wonder if there's a place again for a cypherpunk-ish focus on DC policy, or if you've found sources covering the current policy with a politech-like mindset. In either case, thanks for all those years of good reading.

declan 12y ago
<ipsin>: Thanks for your kind words! I've felt the urge to restart/resume the Politech mailing list a few times in the last few years but haven't been able to dedicate the time such an effort deserves. Also it works better if moderated by a practicing journalist, I think. The short answer is I don't think there is such a source. EFF has good action alerts and blog posts (even if I may occasionally disagree with some of their legislative endorsements). EPIC and the ACLU are often more DC-centric, and Marc (who runs EPIC) is essentially an anti-cypherpunk in his views about the private sector. Among advocacy groups, TechFreedom.org is a relatively new entrant with free-market, liberalize-crypto views. But Berin, who runs it, is a lawyer, not a technologist, and is spending a lot of time on topics like Net neutrality and telecom regulation nowadays. If anyone is thinking of starting such a source of information with a cypherpunk-ish/politech-like focus on DC policy, I'd be happy to offer some advice, tips, and introductions.